On Thursday, November 07, 2013 00:11:37 Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Walter Bright, el 6 de November a las 11:57 me escribiste:
> > On 11/6/2013 4:34 AM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> > >Also I find strange that the first patchlevel version is 2 and not 1.
> > >Was that intended or just an error?
> > 
> > It was intended. I felt that 2.064 => 2.064.1 would have been
> > confusing, hence 2.064 => 2.064.2
> 
> That's funny, I find it very confusing to jump from 2.064 to 2.064.2.
> 2.064 is implied to be 2.064.0, as version 1 is implied to be 1.0 (and
> as a floating point number 1 is 1.0, not 1.1).
> 
> Every other project out there uses this convention. So I wonder why do
> you find 2.064 => 2.064.1 confusing.

Yeah. Going from 2.064 or 2.064.0 to 2.064.1 would be pretty standard. Jumping 
straight from 2.064 to 2.064.2 is what's likely to confuse most people.

> Looking at previous versions I just noticed you did the same with 2.063,
> I didn't notice then. But please, could you consider changing that
> naming scheme and using 2.0XX.1 as the 1st patchlevel (see the relation?

I had assumed that there was a 2.063.1 prior to 2.063.2 but clearly wasn't 
paying enough attention.

- Jonathan M Davis

Reply via email to